January 08, 2013

Freshman Senator Ted Cruz shows how its done

One
of the recurring themes on these pages, at least since Obama’s reelection, is
the political truism, “he who frames the debate, wins the debate.” I have been motivated
in doing so, of course, by the observation that Republicans have done such a
poor job of seizing the narrative from the mainstream media.

Case
in point: why wasn’t the ‘fiscal cliff’ called a ‘bipartisan compromise’? After
all, who doesn’t like compromise and bipartisanism? Of course, if the fiscal
cliff were a bipartisan compromise there would be no pressure on John Boehner
to negotiate away spending cuts with Obama.

While
the GOP old guard on Capitol Hill are oblivious to this sort of political ju
jitsu, it is refreshing to discover that the new breed of Republican
congressmen are much more adept than sclerotic RINO’s such as Dick Lugar and
John McCain. Take for instance freshman Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who penned this
bit of political advice in the Washington Post on Friday:

“Since
Election Day, much energy has been spent analyzing why Republicans did so
poorly. Many have urged that Republicans must “moderate their views,” by which
they mean we should adopt more policies of Democrats. That advice misdiagnoses
the problem.”

Step
one: reject the mainstream narrative. It’s a false set of choices. There are
more choices in life than a hapless RINO and a monomaniacal zealot.

“Voters
are rightly unhappy with the anemic growth in gross domestic product the past four
years; the average, just 1.5
percent, is less than half of our historic average since World War II, but 53 percent of voters believed the economy
was George W. Bush’s fault.

Why
did voters believe that? Obama repeated it relentlessly, and Republicans never
responded.

First you win the argument, then you win the vote, Margaret
Thatcher famously admonished. Republicans did neither.”

It is amazing how many high-level Republican strategists are
oblivious to this truism.

“Nothing
better illustrates that failure than “47 percent.” Not the comment itself nor the good and decent
person who uttered it, but, rather, the overall narrative of Republicans.
Voters were convinced that the GOP is the party of “the rich” and that
Democrats are the party of everybody else.

That characterization is false, but as long as a majority of
Americans believe that Republican policies do not benefit them, Republicans
will continue to lose.”

Step
two: recognize the basic flaw in the GOP’s 2012 message.

“So
let me suggest an alternative course: opportunity conservatism. Republicans
should conceptualize and articulate every domestic policy with a single-minded
focus on easing the ascent up the economic ladder.

We should assess policy with a Rawlsian lens, asking how it
affects those least well-off among us. We should champion the 47 percent.”

Step
three: reframe the debate. (Bonus points for familiarity with the liberal moral
philosopher, John Rawls.)

“Whenever entrepreneurs and small businesses suffer, those
struggling to improve their economic conditions are hurt the worst. Under the
Obama administration, the unemployment rate climbed above 10 percent among Hispanics last year and to 14 percent
among African Americans. Yet Republicans never talked about this.”

Step
four: accuse the Democrats of betraying the people they claim to be
championing. Statistics like this are damning but are never repeated by
scaredy-cat Republicans.

“Don’t
just criticize union bosses; explain how closed shops confiscate wages and make
it harder for low-skilled workers to get jobs.

Don’t
talk generically about education; advocate school choice to empower parents and
expand opportunity for children struggling to get ahead.

Don’t
just dwell on the long-term solvency of Social Security; promote personal
accounts to allow low-income Americans to accumulate wealth and pass it on to
future generations.”

Good
concrete examples of issues reframed for the benefit of conservative
philosophy.

“Republicans ought to view, and explain, every policy
through the lens of economic mobility.”

Reframe,
reframe, reframe. Don’t let the MSM narrative take hold.

Don’t
get me wrong. It is not that I think “opportunity conservatism” is the cat’s
whiskers when it comes to beating Obama-ism. Other formulations may be better.
It is just refreshing to see somebody demonstrate an intellectual nimbleness
that has been noticeably absent in the GOP since Ronald Reagan retired.